Panorama: The Truth About Sports Products, tonight on BBC

Doug Cartel

This could be interesting, a run-down on the various quack-products and bro-science that we all take for granted as being real, including Lucozade, BCAAs, and Puma runners.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18863293

'Lack of evidence' that popular sports products work


Consumers could be wasting their money on sports drinks, protein shakes and high-end trainers, according to a new joint investigation by BBC Panorama and the British Medical Journal.
The investigation into the performance-enhancing claims of some popular sports products found "a striking lack of evidence" to back them up.
A team at Oxford University examined 431 claims in 104 sport product adverts and found a "worrying" lack of high-quality research, calling for better studies to help inform consumers.
Dr Carl Heneghan of the Oxford University Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine led the independent research into the claims made by the makers of sports drinks, protein shakes and trainers.

Gummy Panda

One of the lads on UK Muscle posted the below about it last week:

Britbb wrote:

This was filmed in my gym.

A few points:

1. The film and production crew were middle aged and did not seem to have any clue about exercise AT ALL.

2. Some champion bodybuilders and qualified personal trainers with sports science degrees offered to talk on the program in a brief interview about nutrition etc, they did not want any of it in the program.

3. They went and interviewed and got info from the most average of average gym members, filming them, people who had no idea about training at all (i know this because i know the people they interviewed).

All in all, i would say i am very happy to see how the production team of panorama produces these documentaries that seem to be held in high regard, because in my opinion, after seeing the team at my location and their methods of gathering information (when they had actual educated athletes who offered to speak to them at their disposal), i know how much respect in order to give to a panorama documentary.

Ie... take it with a pinch of salt... a rather large pinch of salt at that!!

Found it hillarious that they didn't want to chat ot any of the bodybuilders, any of the fighters, any of the actual athletes, only the beginners and people who looked like joe/joanne bloggs.

I'll have a look tonight. I wonder will it be like the Irish one asking if whey protein and creatine is unfair advantage.

Hanley

Sounds moronic.

Doug Cartel

Perhaps they got their expert opinions form the guys doing the studies and were only looking for the views of average Joes when they went out to the gym?

tmc86

Sounds like typical journalism -putting an angle on the story that they want which create the most impact.

I really hope that it is factual though and not more sensationalism which you can sometimes get with the Panoram team.

Will have a watch tonight anyway

Doug Cartel

Honestly, this doesn't look sensationalist at all.

Clothing labels and soft drinks producers spend a fortune promoting their products, and hyping up their properties. All this looks to be is someone asking if they have any proof for their claims.

I suppose I'll have to wait and see what the actual program is like.

Mickk

They aren't going to make a program which says drinking a protein shake is easier than cooking some chicken, they will have to put something much more sensational in

frag420

Ie... take it with a pinch of salt... a rather large pinch of salt at that!!

Shows how much he knows about health and nutrition

Rynox45

Could be interesting if it's based on fact. I know trainer producers use prestige pricing, they're all basically the same past €100 but people will buy the more expensive ones because they think expensive = better.

WeeBushy

Mickk wrote: »

They aren't going to make a program which says drinking a protein shake is easier than cooking some chicken, they will have to put something much more sensational in

It's a real shame that that is the case. An unbiased and factual documentary about health and nutrition would be fasciniating.

Thinking about it; it could still be made somewhat 'sensational' to bring in viewers. 'Eggs aren't bad for you, eat all of them', 'Girls won't look like Arnie if they lift weights', 'protein shakes are just a type of food', 'fats are good for you' are all statements that many people we all know would think are wrong. Challenge those assumptions and you bring in the sensation, and who knows, people might actually learn something correct about health and nutrition for once.

Zamboni

I'll hold judgment until I see it and see the context that they used the average gym go-ers

The Guvnor

Good old BritBB!
In all fairness if they had asked Brit a few questions he'd still be answering them!:D

Gummy what Irish documentary?

BigDuffman

Was anyone watching http://www.rte.ie/tv/programmes/fasterhigherstronger.html ...some absolute ****e being talked. Tony Ward was embarassing and as for "Professor" Noel Buckley that chap was spouting some absolute tripe "whizz bang effect" supplements.

Danye

BigDuffman wrote: »

Was anyone watching http://www.rte.ie/tv/programmes/fasterhigherstronger.html ...some absolute ****e being talked. Tony Ward was embarassing and as for "Professor" Noel Buckley that chap was spouting some absolute tripe "whizz bang effect" supplements.

Disappointed I didn't get to see this as it looked interesting.

Why would a respected Professor sprout some tripe? Should we not be heeding what he says?

Transform

BigDuffman wrote: »

Was anyone watching http://www.rte.ie/tv/programmes/fasterhigherstronger.html ...some absolute ****e being talked. Tony Ward was embarassing and as for "Professor" Noel Buckley that chap was spouting some absolute tripe "whizz bang effect" supplements.

totally agree - sad and joe duffy level of understanding on the topics

Doug Cartel

I flicked on to the RTE program half way through. He was going on about starting a course of PEDs and seeing the results, then announced that he couldn't do it because his doctor wouldn't allow it. I felt this was a bit of a bait and switch kind of tactic, and I stopped paying attention after that, but had it on in the background. Towards the end it got really bad, pretty much just asking various ex rugby players, etc what their opinions on the evils of whey powder and creatine was. No attempt to even link it to research, as far as I could see.

squod

Doug Cartel wrote: »

I flicked on to the RTE program half way through. He was going on about starting a course of PEDs and seeing the results, then announced that he couldn't do it because his doctor wouldn't allow it. I felt this was a bit of a bait and switch kind of tactic, and I stopped paying attention after that, but had it on in the background. Towards the end it got really bad, pretty much just asking various ex rugby players, etc what their opinions on the evils of whey powder and creatine was. No attempt to even link it to research, as far as I could see.

I bet the doctor told him that after one cycle he'd get ''too big''. I might even watch it so I can write in and complain about it after. Ask them for a fiver off me TV licence next year or some kind of compensation.

DylanJM

squod wrote: »

I bet the doctor told him that after one cycle he'd get ''too big''. I might even watch it so I can write in and complain about it after. Ask them for a fiver off me TV licence next year or some kind of compensation.

Nah it wasn't anything like that. The drug he was gonna take was EPO and he had blood tests done before hand. In the test results there was something to do with high levels of something or other in his haemoglobin that meant it would be dangerous to take the EPO.

Was still a terrible scaremongering excuse of a program though. You would think whey and creatine were powderised testosterone the way they were talking. They even brought up the whole weights are bad for your bones if you're young malarky.

Doug Cartel

squod wrote: »

I bet the doctor told him that after one cycle he'd get ''too big''. I might even watch it so I can write in and complain about it after. Ask them for a fiver off me TV licence next year or some kind of compensation.

No, he was told that some stat of his (liver function? I can't remember) was already a bit high and that whatever substance he was planning on taking would likely push it into dangerous levels.

EDIT: I missed the post above me.

masseyno9

squod wrote: »

I bet the doctor told him that after one cycle he'd get ''too big''. I might even watch it so I can write in and complain about it after. Ask them for a fiver off me TV licence next year or some kind of compensation.

It was to do with his already naturally elevated level of red blood cells. EPO would increase this further leading to high risk of a cardiac event. I haven't a notion if that's true or not, but that's what they said.

It was kind of interesting (the simulated altitude house in UL was cool) until they started giving out about protein shakes and nutrition supplements. They made no distinction between what is essentially food, and engineered drugs. Even the way they phrased the questions to athletes who were using nutritional supplements immediately came across as provocative. Very little actual science/research based content in it, and most of the interviewees were as thick as the lads down the gym sucking down protein shakes thinking it'll turn them into arnie...then going and drinking like fish and eating their weight in fast food every weekend. The talk of "whizz-bang effects" just proved how little a clue they had really.

EDIT: what the 2 posters above said! Anyone know any supplements to speed up my typing?!! I heard the new "whizz-bang fingerspeed xs" is out soon, better get some!

paddy978

Busy tonight, and BBC player needs you to live in the UK, so is this repeated at anytime I'm interested.

Doug Cartel

By the way I think his decision not to go through with the EPO was completely legitimate, I just don't like the way they set it up as a big reveal moment when he was told he couldn't do it.

Also, on reflection, I would agree that it was actually OK until they got on to the protein powders, then it started to feel like they were filling time with any talking head they could get their hands on at short notice.

DylanJM

Doug Cartel wrote: »

By the way I think his decision not to go through with the EPO was completely legitimate, I just don't like the way they set it up as a big reveal moment when he was told he couldn't do it.

Also, on reflection, I would agree that it was actually OK until they got on to the protein powders, then it started to feel like they were filling time with any talking head they could get their hands on at short notice.

Couldn't agree with you more. The worst bit was when they said rugby players taking creatine had an unfair advantage over players that didn't.

jive

Doug Cartel wrote: »

I flicked on to the RTE program half way through. He was going on about starting a course of PEDs and seeing the results, then announced that he couldn't do it because his doctor wouldn't allow it. I felt this was a bit of a bait and switch kind of tactic, and I stopped paying attention after that, but had it on in the background. Towards the end it got really bad, pretty much just asking various ex rugby players, etc what their opinions on the evils of whey powder and creatine was. No attempt to even link it to research, as far as I could see.

just a giant advert for kinetica thrown in the middle too, about a 5 minute segment of them saying how great they're testing and products are.... great watch -_- zzzz

sconhome

masseyno9 wrote: »

It was to do with his already naturally elevated level of red blood cells. EPO would increase this further leading to high risk of a cardiac event. I haven't a notion if that's true or not, but that's what they said.

Eamonn Coughlan summed it up nicely. The haemocrit level in the blood was 47%, adding EPO to this would produce more blood cells (improving Oxygen carrying capacity) but thicken the blood like adding sand to a fuel tank and run the risk of clogging the 'filter' / heart.

Aparently the presenter level is already naturally high and he would have been running the risk of cardiac stress.

I didn't like the way this was done, no need to build it up as a big event and I'm surprised that DCU were presented as even considering administering a course of EPO. They should have been right out upfront saying its illegal and 'NO WAY!!! the dangers are......'

Looking forward to the Panorama 'Expose' this evening and more sensational journalism.

AMT

Big deal...

People piss away their money on fancy cars, clothes, electronics, cosmetics that claim to be faster, better, make them more attractive to the opposite sex...etc

But stick a similar claim on a tub of protein powder and suddenly your defrauding the masses :rolleyes:

Doug Cartel

Mickk wrote: »

They aren't going to make a program which says drinking a protein shake is easier than cooking some chicken, they will have to put something much more sensational in

It looks like they did. Not chicken though - it was sardines, toast and a head of microwaved broccoli. Oh and a jam sandwich + a glass of water instead of a sports drink.

EDIT: agh, I think I misunderstood what you were saying.

rugbyman2015

Horrendous show. So biased and sensationalism throughout. Worst for me was the nutritional supplements bit. So a rugby player should just eat 10 chicken breasts after a gym workout and match instead...

DM_7

The only thing I learned from the RTE show was Kinetica was made in Ireland.

I did find the whole Supplements are bad Angle to be crazy. The clue is in the name - supplement!

What was the BBC show like - Any chance it will be up on you tube or anything like that?

Doug Cartel

rugbyman2015 wrote: »

Horrendous show. So biased and sensationalism throughout. Worst for me was the nutritional supplements bit. So a rugby player should just eat 10 chicken breasts after a gym workout and match instead...

I thought it was fairly well done, what was the bias? They said that BCAAs have no support, they didn't really say much about protein. Perhaps they could have made it clearer that BCAAs and powdered protein are different things though.

rugbyman2015

BTW guys my previous comment referred to the BBC panorama program, not RTE

rugbyman2015

Doug Cartel wrote: »

I thought it was fairly well done, what was the bias? They said that BCAAs have no support, they didn't really say much about protein. Perhaps they could have made it clearer that BCAAs and powdered protein are different things though.

Agreed I had a heat of the moment rant there. Other parts of the show were quite good but I wasn't impressed how they singled out just BCAA's and Maximuscle products in the supplement area. Maximuscle in particular overhype their products and their marketing leads to a higher price for their products. A more balanced program would have looked at whey protein, creatine etc instead of just a nutritional supplement like BCAA's that have had their fair share of criticism. Should have looked at a wider group of companies and some of the other big one's like USN and ON.

Can anyone give me a quick summary of the RTE show?

Doug Cartel

They actually said that creatine has some evidence to support the claims made about it.

I think the singled out maximuscle as they have the most marketing, and the clear examples of them making claims that couldn't be backed up - it was described as basically being a fashion accessory. There was another Canadian company that got more of a doing, but they had some fairly big claims all backed on trials done on rats in the 30s.

Gummy Panda

Isn't layne Norton doing research that supports BCAA supplements?

Zamboni

rugbyman2015 wrote: »

Agreed I had a heat of the moment rant there. Other parts of the show were quite good but I wasn't impressed how they singled out just BCAA's and Maximuscle products in the supplement area. Maximuscle in particular overhype their products and their marketing leads to a higher price for their products. A more balanced program would have looked at whey protein, creatine etc instead of just a nutritional supplement like BCAA's that have had their fair share of criticism. Should have looked at a wider group of companies and some of the other big one's like USN and ON.

Can anyone give me a quick summary of the RTE show?

Tbf, they had an hour - take sports drinks ,trainers and supps and pick three of the largest brands and highlight Oxfords examination of the evidence the companies provided to support their marketing claims.
I thought it was a reasonable piece. I'd rather a focused programme on supplements too but hey, we're not the only one watching tv

brownej

The BBC program was ok. They seem to have a bit of a dislike for GSK though.
A quick summary is

1. Sports drinks only work for elite endurance athletes. It has little benefit for joe public.
2. Runners are over hyped and marketed. Looks like barefoot running is better but there isn't enough evidence. Until there is evidence you should wear shoes that are comfortable.
3. With a proper balanced diet with enough of the right nutrients, you don't need any supplements.

They mentioned in 1 sentence that creatine probably works but didn't get into it.

None of the above is any news to anyone who has done any reading in the area. It would seem that Joe public believe everything they're told by marketing and rather than educate themselves they should be protected from themselves by changing the way all sports products are marketed.

I think that was the gist of it.

A_Sober_Paddy

They had nothing on protein shakes, just the added amino acids didn't seem to have any benefits.

They seemed to gloss over anything that may be positive about supplements

Scuba Ste

rugbyman2015 wrote: »

So a rugby player should just eat 10 chicken breasts after a gym workout and match instead...

Didn't they say the programme was aimed the average punter and not elite athletes? In the same way the marketing is aimed at that demographic. It didn't get into protein, creatine etc because it was only looking at products with unverified claims although it did suggest that protein etc was unnecessary too.

It was a fairly balanced programme really. Don't believe all the hype sold by sports companies. It's just common sense.

I thought it was gas when your man was laughing at the zero calorie energy drinks.

rugbyman2015

Barefoot running was an interesting one. Always thought about doing it in my local park but odd stares from car drivers would get to me tbh. Didn't catch the creatine bit actually. Was having dinner with a few people while watching the show together so didn't hear everything that was said.

Zamboni

Scuba Ste wrote: »

I thought it was gas when your man was laughing at the zero calorie energy drinks.

That was class.

boogle

rugbyman2015 wrote: »

Barefoot running was an interesting one. Always thought about doing it in my local park but odd stares from car drivers would get to me tbh.

That and worrying about what you might step on :P

Loved the bit where the cyclist was eating jam sandwiches. Reminded me of being a kid. Whenever Dad was left in charge of the kids he made us eat mashed banana sandwiches.
I'd have to agree with the idea of eating real food instead of protein shakes. I've read the ingredients list on a couple of brands in the health shop. Full of additives and stabilisers and sweeteners...

Burkatron

boogle wrote: »

That and worrying about what you might step on :P

Loved the bit where the cyclist was eating jam sandwiches. Reminded me of being a kid. Whenever Dad was left in charge of the kids he made us eat mashed banana sandwiches.
I'd have to agree with the idea of eating real food instead of protein shakes. I've read the ingredients list on a couple of brands in the health shop. Full of additives and stabilisers and sweeteners...

You definitely should be going for real food over powdered protein but it's not always ideal! If you go for unflavoured Whey like my proteins you avoid all that added gank bar a bit of Soy Lecithin as an emulisifier...I think! People give out about the taste but it really doesnt taste like anything!

hardCopy

amphkingwest wrote: »

masseyno9 wrote: »

It was to do with his already naturally elevated level of red blood cells. EPO would increase this further leading to high risk of a cardiac event. I haven't a notion if that's true or not, but that's what they said.

Eamonn Coughlan summed it up nicely. The haemocrit level in the blood was 47%, adding EPO to this would produce more blood cells (improving Oxygen carrying capacity) but thicken the blood like adding sand to a fuel tank and run the risk of clogging the 'filter' / heart.

Aparently the presenter level is already naturally high and he would have been running the risk of cardiac stress.

I didn't like the way this was done, no need to build it up as a big event and I'm surprised that DCU were presented as even considering administering a course of EPO. They should have been right out upfront saying its illegal and 'NO WAY!!! the dangers are......'

Looking forward to the Panorama 'Expose' this evening and more sensational journalism.

EPO itself isn't illegal, it's quite commonly used to treat kidney patients. Assuming Niall Moyna is a medical doctor he could prescribe it under his supervision.

davyjose

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

They had nothing on protein shakes, just the added amino acids didn't seem to have any benefits.

They seemed to gloss over anything that may be positive about supplements

I love how people with zero personal experience of something, have such loud opinions about said things. I've been dieting HARD lately and my lifts are climbing. I'm putting on visible muscle (legs, traps, shoulders), and I put this mainly down to BCAA's.

There are many aspects of hypertrophy and weight loss, not to mention catabolism and weight gain, that science has yet to fully understand, or that there are conflicting theories on. I'll listen to guys who've been there.

A_Sober_Paddy

davyjose wrote: »

I love how people with zero personal experience of something, have such loud opinions about said things. I've been dieting HARD lately and my lifts are climbing. I'm putting on visible muscle (legs, traps, shoulders), and I put this mainly down to BCAA's.

There are many aspects of hypertrophy and weight loss, not to mention catabolism and weight gain, that science has yet to fully understand, or that there are conflicting theories on. I'll listen to guys who've been there.

What I posted was kind of a synopsis of the BBC show and not my personal opinion

adamski8

davyjose wrote: »

I love how people with zero personal experience of something, have such loud opinions about said things. I've been dieting HARD lately and my lifts are climbing. I'm putting on visible muscle (legs, traps, shoulders), and I put this mainly down to BCAA's.

There are many aspects of hypertrophy and weight loss, not to mention catabolism and weight gain, that science has yet to fully understand, or that there are conflicting theories on. I'll listen to guys who've been there.

but they werent saying that they don't work just that the company was making claims that werent actually backed up by hard science. all well and good if you believe that its helping you but you are just one person and afaik you arent in a study with say 1000 other people. They seemed just to be having a go at the marketing more than the supplements etc themselves.

davyjose

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

What I posted was kind of a synopsis of the BBC show and not my personal opinion

I know, was aimed more at the folks claiming they don't work.

Doug Cartel

davyjose wrote: »

I love how people with zero personal experience of something, have such loud opinions about said things.

You're talking about a team of seasoned and impartial researchers from the universities of Glasgow and Oxford. Would you even entertain the notion that they may have a small idea about what they are talking about?

tmc86

I wasn't tuned into the whole BBC episode but I lost all interest after they showed various supplement company television adverts like the maximuscle rugby one.

It looked as if they had stuck a camera infront of a computer screen and filmed it from youtube. I would expect more from BBC to be honest, if they can't even bother getting a proper quality copy then who knows what else they skipped on?

Konkers

adamski8 wrote: »

but they werent saying that they don't work just that the company was making claims that werent actually backed up by hard science. all well and good if you believe that its helping you but you are just one person and afaik you arent in a study with say 1000 other people. They seemed just to be having a go at the marketing more than the supplements etc themselves.

that just about sums it up re the BB's programme.

I'm not sure that the RTE programme was actualy knocking the benefits of supplements (although the BB's programme was). I think they were saying that some sports nutrition bought over the net could contain banned substances (as was the claim made by a banned female Irish Runner on the progarmme).

Doug Cartel

tmc86 wrote: »

I wasn't tuned into the whole BBC episode but I lost all interest after they showed various supplement company television adverts like the maximuscle rugby one.

It looked as if they had stuck a camera infront of a computer screen and filmed it from youtube. I would expect more from BBC to be honest, if they can't even bother getting a proper quality copy then who knows what else they skipped on?

Yes, this is a common device used in documentaries to make a clear distinction between the advertisement and the documentary itself.